Re: I: Help with indexes/queries/msaccess
От | wsheldah@lexmark.com |
---|---|
Тема | Re: I: Help with indexes/queries/msaccess |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200106291450.KAA26147@interlock2.lexmark.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | I: Help with indexes/queries/msaccess ("Fabrizio Mazzoni" <fabrizio@macron.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
When you use the join syntax you did, you're explicitly telling postgres in what order to join the tables. If you use the "classic" syntax as you described it, postgres will do its best to figure out the best join order. It probably couldn't hurt to try. When you say you created all the necessary indices, do you mean that all the fields used in the join criteria are indexed? "Fabrizio Mazzoni" <fabrizio%macron.com@interlock.lexmark.com> on 06/29/2001 09:47:01 AM To: pgsql-general%postgresql.org@interlock.lexmark.com cc: (bcc: Wesley Sheldahl/Lex/Lexmark) Subject: [GENERAL] I: Help with indexes/queries/msaccess Hi all...i'm converting an access db to postgres and i have a question on indexes/queries. The following query, when launched on postgres with the explain command, isn't using index scans but only sequential scans..why is this?? I've created all the necessary indexes but the query is very very slow... This is the query: [ query snipped] This is a query generated with access 97 and modified to work on postgres.. The query executed on postgres is much much slower than on access 97.. I was thinking of rewriting it with the "classic" join syntax eg: select * from a,b where a.a=b.b ...would this partially solve my problem?? Can anyone help me out.? Thanks in advance..! fabrizio@macrongolf.com http://macrongolf.com http://eteampoint.com http://macron.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: